• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Congresswoman Omar ignites new anti-Semitism controversy with comments on AIPAC

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 18, 2018
305
"implying that Americans support Israel because of money alone is offensive enough".
This reads to me like "you can't say that Kevin McCarthy supports Israel because AIPAC pay him".
Am I reading this wrong?
Because if not, not only am I not agreeing with this, I really really struggle to see this is as a good faith critique of her.
Help me out here.

I'm still confused about why that RT is offensive by the way, but we can tackle this one issue at a time.
Basically we are not supposed to talk about the role of money in American support for Israel. Ever! And now since everyone has accepted this one true fact, let's accept apologies and move on.
 

Royalan

Buy Bionic. Please.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,216
People are not going to give you rights if you ask for it nicely and politely. I want Omar to be as rude and uncivil as possible. Ruffle feathers. Keep talking and bring up AIPAC, the amount of influence this lobby group has on American politicians and why it has this much power to control and influence the American government on behalf of a foreign government.
Personally, I wish this is what Omar was doing. But she's largely not. Real people and activists are out there having these discussions. BDS was started by real people out there having these discussions. Omar's playing Twitter captain, and that's my personal problem with this. Put your money where your Twitter fingers are. Let me see you make the news because you introduced something bold and fully-formed, not because you tripped over yourself on Twitter and your supporters had to rush In to play the "No no no, this is what she was really doing!" game. .
 
Aug 27, 2018
946
The crux of what makes this whole thing bad faith is the assumption that any time someone mentions Israel and money in the same sentence, it's anti-Semitism. This assumption is itself just as anti-Semitic as the notion it criticizes. All this results in is making the subject taboo, which errs favorably for the far-right government of Israel.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,615
On the RT? Do you actively use twitter? For an example of what it looked like Omar was doing, scroll down Austan's page until you hit January 30th. https://twitter.com/Austan_Goolsbee

See what he's doing? He's RTing people complaining about him in order to humiliate them. It's done by some people. That's what that RT made it look like she was doing.
But like, that dude accused her of intentionally using racist dog whistles against Jews.
Why the fuck should she respect such attacks?
Because he's Jewish and she's a Muslim?

And JFC, she RT-ed, we gonna really act like she replied with a picture of Olivia Munn in Auschwitz?
This is crazy ass tone policing, for again, for the sake of context, her replying to fucking awful racist attack by Kevin McCarthy.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,448
I fail to see what's the controversy here. If anything, this woman lays out the facts. I applaud her. There's nothing anti-semitic about her statements.

The US needs to scale back their boner for Israel.
 
Dec 26, 2018
5,526
The crux of what makes this whole thing bad faith is the assumption that any time someone mentions Israel and money in the same sentence, it's anti-Semitism. This assumption is itself just as anti-Semitic as the notion it criticizes. All this results in is making the subject taboo, which errs favorably for the far-right government of Israel.
Nope, that's not what Omar did. That dismisses how problematic that tweet, along with her history of other inflammatory bullshit on the subject, is in context. This is not a subject where clarity is to be avoided, quite the opposite.
 

Jeb

Avenger
Mar 14, 2018
825
So now we are so busy talking about the sensibilities of Tweets and Retweets, that AIPAC slips slowly under the shadows and cackles like a madman.

Good job.
☝️
I take back what I said about Era focusing on big picture.
As we bicker about a statement long after the apology has been made, the core issue of Aipac’s influence is long lost, they won.
They deflected criticism on them to the point that even progressive Era fell for it.

So when is the next congress man/ woman gonna bring up this taboo issue? Oh wait, there isn’t going to be, especially since all the focus on the anti semitism accusations on this have had full impact.

The real evil was their influence but lets get distracted.
 

Crocks

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
926
I'm very aware that they are two different things, it does not change the fact that both those descriptors, or even the concept of concentration camps are frequently used against Trump, and it strikes me as utterly ridiculous that an entire government gets to shield itself from those same criticisms because they hide behind dead victims.
It doesn't. Other countries (which is to say, other than Nazi Germany) have, and continue to, use concentration camps. Other countries offer different rights depending on who you are. Other countries use overwhelming use of military force. There is not a a so for thing that Israel does where Nazi Germany is the most appropriate.hisyorical analogy. Not even close. When you really truly consider what the Nazis did in almost all areas - especially their treatment of Jews, where the industrial scale slaughter has and hopefully will never be seen again - the comparison is entirely inappropriate. As such, when people choose to make the comparison (with the implication of a sort of tutting, head-shaking 'the victims become the aggressor, look how the tables have turned' wryness), you *have* to interpret the comparison as one specifically chosen to most hurt the people of Israel precisely because you're claiming that they're acting just like those who enacted this unspeaking evil upon Jewish people.

No on will complain if you compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa, or expansionist Russia, or the Serbs, and any other of the countless far, far more appropriate comparisons. The problem comes when you specifically choose the one, inappropriate comparison that's designed to hurt as much as possible.
 
Aug 27, 2018
946
Nope, that's not what Omar did. That dismisses how problematic that tweet, along with her history of other inflammatory bullshit on the subject, is in context. This is not a subject where clarity is to be avoided, quite the opposite.
You're right, what she said was even less worthy of being called anti-Semitic because she didn't even mention Israel, just AIPAC.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,192
It doesn't. Other countries (which is to say, other than Nazi Germany) have, and continue to, use concentration camps. Other countries offer different rights depending on who you are. Other countries use overwhelming use of military force. There is not a a so for thing that Israel does where Nazi Germany is the most appropriate.hisyorical analogy. Not even close. When you really truly consider what the Nazis did in almost all areas - especially their treatment of Jews, where the industrial scale slaughter has and hopefully will never be seen again - the comparison is entirely inappropriate. As such, when people choose to make the comparison (with the implication of a sort of tutting, head-shaking 'the victims become the aggressor, look how the tables have turned' wryness), you *have* to interpret the comparison as one specifically chosen to most hurt the people of Israel precisely because you're claiming that they're acting just like those who enacted this unspeaking evil upon Jewish people.

No on will complain if you compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa, or expansionist Russia, or the Serbs, and any other of the countless far, far more appropriate comparisons. The problem comes when you specifically choose the one, inappropriate comparison that's designed to hurt as much as possible.
Oh no, plenty. But let us just disagree with this argument because it will totally detail the thread.

Edit: for what it's worth I agree that there are some people who uses the comparison to deal the most hurt, but not to the former.
 
Dec 26, 2018
5,526
You're right, what she said was even less worthy of being called anti-Semitic because she didn't even mention Israel, just AIPAC.
It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

 
Oct 25, 2017
5,514
The point for leadership is- she clearly needs twitter lessons, and the public "this was bad and wasn't ok please do better" statement is part of that.
This is the Dems leadership statement:

“Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.


“We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests. Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.


“As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered.”
That's not "You need Twitter lessons", that's "Israel is our friend and you better not forget it"


It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

Israel =/= Jews.

AIPAC =/= Jews.
 
It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

I am sorry, but what is so problematic about this tweet exactly?

She didn't say the evil doings of Jewish people. She said evil doings of Israel. And it is true that Israel has often get a pass for all the humanitarian offenses they committed, which of course largely influenced by how so many people in power in the US are so enamored by them.

So again, what's so problematic about this tweet exactly?
 

Git

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,784
It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

There's nothing wrong with that tweet. Although, what you are doing is antisemitic, I'm afraid. She didn't mention Jews or Jewish people. Conflating AIPAC or Israel with Jewish people generally is antisemitism. It's astounding how so many of you who claim she has uttered an antisemitic statement are the ones invoking the trope, not her.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,615
It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

Why can we talk about the NRA like that but not about AIPAC?
I'm Jewish and I really don't get why anyone would find that offensive.

Also, that 2012 tweet is during operation pillar of defense.
Why the fuck are we tone policing her reaction to shit like this?


 
Oct 25, 2017
3,475
There's nothing wrong with that tweet. Although, what you are doing is antisemitic, I'm afraid. She didn't mention Jews or Jewish people. Conflating AIPAC or Israel with Jewish people generally is antisemitism. It's astounding how so many of you who claim she has uttered an antisemitic statement are the ones invoking the trope, not her.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,615
There's nothing wrong with that tweet. Although, what you are doing is antisemitic, I'm afraid. She didn't mention Jews or Jewish people. Conflating AIPAC or Israel with Jewish people generally is antisemitism. It's astounding how so many of you who claim she has uttered an antisemitic statement are the ones invoking the trope, not her.
You are not wrong about anything, but I don't think it's that astounding, conflating Israel with Jews in general has been a project of the state of Israel since at least 1952, if not before that.
 
May 18, 2018
305
Personally, I wish this is what Omar was doing. But she's largely not. Real people and activists are out there having these discussions. BDS was started by real people out there having these discussions. Omar's playing Twitter captain, and that's my personal problem with this. Put your money where your Twitter fingers are. Let me see you make the news because you introduced something bold and fully-formed, not because you tripped over yourself on Twitter and your supporters had to rush In to play the "No no no, this is what she was really doing!" game. .
Considering she got this much push back, imagine the outrage if she actually did something? If she could do something in the first place that is. What's wrong in using twitter. AOC is using twitter to get the message out. Why can't Omar?

This is hilarious. From accusations of anti-semitism to finally, yeah, she's not doing anything important. It's the rare American politician who can even venture into this topic and escape unscathed. And as we saw, she did not escape unscathed and ended up apologizing after the likes of Pelosi ganged up on her.
 

Jeb

Avenger
Mar 14, 2018
825
It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

Their was a grand total of zero lies detected.
Isreal and it’s lobbyists have all the major powers singing its praises as it commits atrocities with full impunity.
She does not refer to all Jews, but the influence of Isreal and its supporters.

Again, the whole point of the lobby’s influence is lost to most people.
 
That Ichthyosaurus would use that tweet as an example of her alleged use of "offensive Jewish stereotypes", as well as his eagerness to equate AIPAC = Jewish and Israel = Jewish, is telling.

Also not surprising, in a way. It's just one of those "criticizing Israel = anti-semitic" bullcrap we've seen again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
 

Crocks

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
926
And here you are doing exactly what I described. Nice. Love to see it.
It's because no other country gets this treatment. All lobby groups attempt to gain favour for their group, whether they're a country, an industry, a special interest group etc. Are there some lobby groups that forgo money that I'm missing? How many others does she say are "all about the Benjamins, baby"? Does she claim that about the Tanzanian lobby ?
 
It's because no other country gets this treatment. All lobby groups attempt to gain favour for their group, whether they're a country, an industry, a special interest group etc. Are there some lobby groups that forgo money that I'm missing? How many others does she say are "all about the Benjamins, baby"? Does she claim that about the Tanzanian lobby ?
AIPAC is a unique existence. Many people refers to it as the strongest lobbying group in the US, and for good reason. Especially in the context of how the US is always acting like a shield that bars Israel from suffering consequences from untold humanitarian offenses they have committed. Heck a bill that incriminates US citizen individuals for participating in BDS, something that should have been their first amendment rights, have been passed by the Senate because clearly supporting the interest a foreign nation is much more important than honoring the first amendment of their own people (and it should be noted that yes, Democrats are co-sponsoring that bill as well)

So no, you're trying to equate their power and influence and how they have and will continue to massively influence the realms of politics in the US with some other random lobbying group from Tanzania is not at all appropriate. Israel and the US is such a unique relationship that there's really nothing other like it.
 
Aug 27, 2018
946
It's because no other country gets this treatment. All lobby groups attempt to gain favour for their group, whether they're a country, an industry, a special interest group etc. Are there some lobby groups that forgo money that I'm missing? How many others does she say are "all about the Benjamins, baby"? Does she claim that about the Tanzanian lobby ?
Maybe because Israel has an unprecedented amount of influence on US legislation compared to a lot of countries, while also regularly committing blatant human rights atrocities? Maybe that's why? Just a little bit?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,128
South East Asia
So uhh..you shouldn't blame citizens for the fucked up actions of their government/leaders, but why can posters here treat criticism of Israel as anti-semitic attacks on the entire Jewish community? Like..I'm a muslim and I'm not gonna be mad when folks here say fuck Saudi Arabia. I'm smart enough to know that their anger is not aimed at muslims as a whole but the actions of a select few with power.
 
Oct 27, 2017
13,527
It was antisemitic because it was straight up money is the reason for the Jew controlling congress - which is toxic AF language. I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt that wasn't her intent, but this wasn't her first rodeo speaking about offensive Jewish stereotypes. This is what she tweeted in 2012:

Man are you fucking serious?

In what way is calling Israel evil anti semetism? Next you will tell me the US or Saudi Arabia shouldn't be called evil for some of the shit they do. Guess what? A smart persons would understand that people are talking about the government and their supporters.
 
So uhh..you shouldn't blame citizens for the fucked up actions of their government/leaders, but why can posters here treat criticism of Israel as anti-semitic attacks on the entire Jewish community? Like..I'm a muslim and I'm not gonna be mad when folks here say fuck Saudi Arabia. I'm smart enough to know that their anger is not aimed at muslims as a whole but the actions of a select few with power.
It truly is a mystery worthy of thinkingemoji.jpg, isn't it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,514
It's because no other country gets this treatment. All lobby groups attempt to gain favour for their group, whether they're a country, an industry, a special interest group etc. Are there some lobby groups that forgo money that I'm missing? How many others does she say are "all about the Benjamins, baby"? Does she claim that about the Tanzanian lobby ?
No, you're right. No other country does get this treatment. Other countries get called out for trying to use their wealth to influence US politics without the politicians and media clutching their pearls and leaping to the defence of the poor, maligned, lobbyists. It's only Israel that can rely on bipartisan support for it's fuckery.

See this entire thread:


Secondly, yes Ilhan Omar has spoken out about other foreign nations including calling for a BDS like boycott of Saudi Arabia. She has spoken out against them so much that the Saudis targeted her and Rashida Tlaib for a smear campaign upon their election.

https://www.minnpost.com/national/2018/12/whos-afraid-of-ilhan-omar-saudi-arabia-for-one/

A Dec. 9 op-ed in Al Arabiya, a Saudi-funded news network, is typical: It says the two “Muslim sisters” are aligned with an anti-Saudi movement that infiltrated American politics in order to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives — so it could rebuke President Donald Trump’s policy to maintain a strong U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Faisal al-Shammeri, an Al Arabiya writer who works for the Saudi diplomatic mission in the U.S., tweeted out a list of Omar’s social media statements about Saudi Arabia and declared she will be “hostile to the Gulf.”
Omar has broadcast unsparing criticism of Saudi Arabia’s handling of Yemen and of Khashoggi to her 271,000 Twitter followers. In November, she tweeted out a New York Times story on the Yemen war, saying the “Saudi-led assault on civilians is [a] crime against humanity,” and accusing the U.S. of being complicit in atrocities.


On Oct. 15, the day that Turkish investigators said they found evidence Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Omar tweeted: “The Saudi government might have been strategic at covering up the daily atrocities carried out against minorities, women, activists and even the #YemenGenocide, but the murder of #JamalKhashoggi should be the last evil act they are allowed to commit.” (She added a hashtag, “#BDSSaudi,” apparently a call to subject Saudi Arabia to a “boycott, divest, and sanction” strategy of isolation that Omar also supports using against Israel.)


Perhaps most concerning from a Saudi point of view: On Dec. 15, when the U.S. Senate approved a resolution to end U.S. involvement in the Yemen war, Omar cheered it and indicated she’d work to do the same when she takes office next year: “In January we can have the house vote to help permanently end this atrocious war and hold Saudi Arabia accountable,” she tweeted, along with a link to a video from Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a longtime critic of the Yemen war.

is "Jewish money pulling strings behind the scenes" anti-semitic? I think the issue lies here.
She didn't say Jewish. She said AIPAC. So no, the issue doesn't lie there unless someone wants to be deliberately dishonest and muddy the waters until people spend more time talking about the wording of a tweet than the fact that lobbyists have so much sway on Capitol Hill that we see unconstitutional bills being passed that strip away the liberties of US citizens in order to protect the interests of a foreign nation.
 
May 18, 2018
305
Why can we talk about the NRA like that but not about AIPAC?
I'm Jewish and I really don't get why anyone would find that offensive.

Also, that 2012 tweet is during operation pillar of defense.
Why the fuck are we tone policing her reaction to shit like this?
And 2 years after pillar of defense was protective edge - I like how Israel gives these names for basically the mass slaughter of a group of people. thousands of Palestinians including children and babies are massacred in these periodic assaults on Gaza. How is that not evil? Why is calling it evil, an indication that she is being anti-semitic as per Ichthyosaurus.
 

Crocks

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
926
AIPAC is a unique existence. Many people refers to it as the strongest lobbying group in the US, and for good reason. Especially in the context of how the US is always acting like a shield that bars Israel from suffering consequences from untold humanitarian offenses they have committed. Heck a bill that incriminates US citizen individuals for participating in BDS, something that should have been their first amendment rights, have been passed by the Senate because clearly supporting a foreign nation is much more important than honoring the first amendment of their own people.

So no, you're trying to equate their power and influence and how they have and will continue to massively influence the realms of politics in the US with some other random lobbying group from Tanzania is not at all appropriate.
The power is not the same, obviously. I wasn't equating their power in my post, I'm not sure why you think I was. Tanzania's budget is much lower. Does that means "it's all about the Benjamins baby" is a purely Israeli truth? That Israel's lobby's power is purely because the lobby group is buying off legislators? There are several other meaningful explanations for why they might be supporting the bills they do, and the foreign policy they do.

The US is, by virtue of its immense power, always helping some group with every action or inaction that it takes. Airstrikes in Syria, Naval patrols off the East African coast, pipelines with Canada, there's always someone benefitting and someone losing from everything it does, big and small. The justifications for these can be varied - sometimes there's a financial element that will benefit the US, for example the maintainance of shipping channels across the globe as policed by the US Navy. Sometimes it's geopolitical, as in the case of Obama's intervention into th Brexit debate to try to encourage the UK to remain part of the EU as a strong UK inside the EU is beficial to the US standing there. Sometimes it's genuinely a case of trying to help on a humanitarian basis, such as in the American, French and British air strikes in Syria attempting to destroy chemical weapons plants with no larger goal or motivation, or in attempting to end the genocide in Serbia during the Balkans conflict in the 90s. Why is it that when the US helps Israel, and only Israel, does the default argument from some elements appear to boil down to "the only Jewish state in the world has bought off the legislators so they'll do whatever Israel wants"?
 
No, you're right. No other country does get this treatment. Other countries get called out for trying to use their wealth to influence US politics without the politicians and media clutching their pearls and leaping to the defence of the poor, maligned, lobbyists. It's only Israel that can rely on bipartisan support for it's fuckery.

/snip

.
Oh shit, she's in Saudi Arabia's shit list too?

Wow. My admiration for her grows even further.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,192
The power is not the same, obviously. I wasn't equating their power in my post, I'm not sure why you think I was. Tanzania's budget is much lower. Does that means "it's all about the Benjamins baby" is a purely Israeli truth? That Israel's lobby's power is purely because the lobby group is buying off legislators? There are several other meaningful explanations for why they might be supporting the bills they do, and the foreign policy they do.

The US is, by virtue of its immense power, always helping some group with every action or inaction that it takes. Airstrikes in Syria, Naval patrols off the East African coast, pipelines with Canada, there's always someone benefitting and someone losing from everything it does, big and small. The justifications for these can be varied - sometimes there's a financial element that will benefit the US, for example the maintainance of shipping channels across the globe as policed by the US Navy. Sometimes it's geopolitical, as in the case of Obama's intervention into th Brexit debate to try to encourage the UK to remain part of the EU as a strong UK inside the EU is beficial to the US standing there. Sometimes it's genuinely a case of trying to help on a humanitarian basis, such as in the American, French and British air strikes in Syria attempting to destroy chemical weapons plants with no larger goal or motivation, or in attempting to end the genocide in Serbia during the Balkans conflict in the 90s. Why is it that when the US helps Israel, and only Israel, does the default argument from some elements appear to boil down to "the only Jewish state in the world has bought off the legislators so they'll do whatever Israel wants"?
The hell are you talking about.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,514
The power is not the same, obviously. I wasn't equating their power in my post, I'm not sure why you think I was. Tanzania's budget is much lower. Does that means "it's all about the Benjamins baby" is a purely Israeli truth? That Israel's lobby's power is purely because the lobby group is buying off legislators? There are several other meaningful explanations for why they might be supporting the bills they do, and the foreign policy they do.

The US is, by virtue of its immense power, always helping some group with every action or inaction that it takes. Airstrikes in Syria, Naval patrols off the East African coast, pipelines with Canada, there's always someone benefitting and someone losing from everything it does, big and small. The justifications for these can be varied - sometimes there's a financial element that will benefit the US, for example the maintainance of shipping channels across the globe as policed by the US Navy. Sometimes it's geopolitical, as in the case of Obama's intervention into th Brexit debate to try to encourage the UK to remain part of the EU as a strong UK inside the EU is beficial to the US standing there. Sometimes it's genuinely a case of trying to help on a humanitarian basis, such as in the American, French and British air strikes in Syria attempting to destroy chemical weapons plants with no larger goal or motivation, or in attempting to end the genocide in Serbia during the Balkans conflict in the 90s. Why is it that when the US helps Israel, and only Israel, does the default argument from some elements appear to boil down to "the only Jewish state in the world has bought off the legislators so they'll do whatever Israel wants"?
Ask this question when any of those countries institute apartheid regimes, steal land they want and bomb the shit out of the land they don't and then shoot innocent men, women and children as well as medical volunteers and journalists with impunity because they know they have bipartisan support in the USA for their actions.

When that happens then you can play the whataboutism game.
 

Crocks

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
926
No, you're right. No other country does get this treatment. Other countries get called out for trying to use their wealth to influence US politics without the politicians and media clutching their pearls and leaping to the defence of the poor, maligned, lobbyists. It's only Israel that can rely on bipartisan support for it's fuckery.
That's a good comparison, but the responses aren't the same at all. No one - I should caveat this with no one meaningful, because you can find *someone* who supports anything - thinks Saudi is buying off legislators left right and center. The overriding narrative with Saudi Arabia is a) that it's a bastard but it's *our* bastard in a region of poor choices to support and thus it does our dirty work and b) they buy loads of our weapons and that's worth a lot of money and helps to secure the relationship onto the future (see what happens to the various countries who bought US fighter jets only to fall out with Washington and find their jets stop being useful because they can't buy spare parts anymore). The idea, in summary, is that they're *useful* to the US and the west and thus we put up with their execution of journalists because they're a regional power and we want them on our side rather than against us. These arguments could almost all be applied to Israel, too, but they rarely are. With Israel the idea that legislators and the government act against the interests of the US and instead favour the interests of Israel because Israel is paying individuals to do so. The idea that supporting Israel may be of geopolitical usefulness rarely gets a look in.
 
The power is not the same, obviously. I wasn't equating their power in my post, I'm not sure why you think I was. Tanzania's budget is much lower. Does that means "it's all about the Benjamins baby" is a purely Israeli truth? That Israel's lobby's power is purely because the lobby group is buying off legislators? There are several other meaningful explanations for why they might be supporting the bills they do, and the foreign policy they do.

The US is, by virtue of its immense power, always helping some group with every action or inaction that it takes. Airstrikes in Syria, Naval patrols off the East African coast, pipelines with Canada, there's always someone benefitting and someone losing from everything it does, big and small. The justifications for these can be varied - sometimes there's a financial element that will benefit the US, for example the maintainance of shipping channels across the globe as policed by the US Navy. Sometimes it's geopolitical, as in the case of Obama's intervention into th Brexit debate to try to encourage the UK to remain part of the EU as a strong UK inside the EU is beficial to the US standing there. Sometimes it's genuinely a case of trying to help on a humanitarian basis, such as in the American, French and British air strikes in Syria attempting to destroy chemical weapons plants with no larger goal or motivation, or in attempting to end the genocide in Serbia during the Balkans conflict in the 90s. Why is it that when the US helps Israel, and only Israel, does the default argument from some elements appear to boil down to "the only Jewish state in the world has bought off the legislators so they'll do whatever Israel wants"?
Because again, Israel is really a unique existence in the context of their relationship with the US. It's a relationship where everyone in power in the US is seemingly supportive of Israel, regardless of anything that they do. It's a relationship where everyone in power in the US is seemingly so afraid to criticize Israel and AIPAC because everyone seem so eager to put Israel's interest first and foremost, even when it is conflict with the interest of their own citizens (the anti-BDS bill, and the fact that there are laws now where people working for government must sign an affidavit stating that they are required to not criticizing Israel lest they lose the job, with similar bills enacted even on blue "progressive" states)

It's to the point where it seems like indeed, the US will do everything that Israel wants, regardless of the consequences or the right or wrong of it.

There is simply quite nothing like it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,514
The idea, in summary, is that they're *useful* to the US and the west and thus we put up with their execution of journalists because they're a regional power and we want them on our side rather than against us. These arguments could almost all be applied to Israel, too, but they rarely are.
Dude "It's the only democracy in the region" or "They're an important cultural/strategic ally" is brought up EVERY time anybody discusses unflinching US support of Israel.
 
May 18, 2018
305
No, you're right. No other country does get this treatment. Other countries get called out for trying to use their wealth to influence US politics without the politicians and media clutching their pearls and leaping to the defence of the poor, maligned, lobbyists. It's only Israel that can rely on bipartisan support for it's fuckery.
It's just not a good look you see. As per Kirblar, Jewish democrats get offended by these things and their sensibilities are very important. More important than talking about the undue influence AIPAC has and why it has that undue influence.

Oh shit, she's in Saudi Arabia's shit list too?

Wow. My admiration for her grows even further.
Yeah, she's amazing.
 
Dec 26, 2018
5,526
Their was a grand total of zero lies detected.
Isreal and it’s lobbyists have all the major powers singing its praises as it commits atrocities with full impunity.
She does not refer to all Jews, but the influence of Isreal and its supporters.

Again, the whole point of the lobby’s influence is lost to most people.
This post misses the point of why that tweet got an antisemitic reaction. You're not saying anything don't agree with here. Yes, she was right. Where she fucked up was how she presented it. She didn't answer this like it was a question on Jeopardy. Many posters have gone into the details of why negative Jewish stereotypes are bad, but it's not getting through.

That Ichthyosaurus would use that tweet as an example of her alleged use of "offensive Jewish stereotypes", as well as his eagerness to equate AIPAC = Jewish and Israel = Jewish, is telling.

Also not surprising, in a way. It's just one of those "criticizing Israel = anti-semitic" bullcrap we've seen again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
No, it's not. You're refusing to acknowledge the issue here isn't that back and white. No-one is arguing for AIPAC here, and you know it. Did you forget that AIPAC are Jewish, which is why this is coming off as bad? I agree they don't represent all Jewish people, but they don't have to for this to be viewed as anti-semitism.

This isn't about criticising Israel, i'ts clumsily attacking AIPAC with framing that can be interpreted as anti-semitism.

Why can we talk about the NRA like that but not about AIPAC?
I'm Jewish and I really don't get why anyone would find that offensive.

Also, that 2012 tweet is during operation pillar of defense.
Why the fuck are we tone policing her reaction to shit like this?


You can talk about the NRA like that since it's not an ethnic group or a persecuted history or has oppressive language by its enemies around the world because of the former. You can badmouth the NRA all you like and I'd agree with you, but this thread isn't about thread so they're off-topic.

You may not, but many Jewish people do and I'm not including AIPAC or Lukid. Which is why this is a controversial subject where people treat with kid gloves for a reason, particularly politicians.

Antisemitic language doesn't cease to be antisemitic despite having good intentions behind it. That was a tweet she has to apologise for, as well. There is no "get to of jail free" card for being racist because you had good intentions, it's not how this works.

You're focused on whether what her message was, which many people are doing to ignore the real problem here - the framing of her words. That's all it is. Posting responses like that is useless because I agree with you already, as do many other posters which keeps getting ignored because people want to get on a cross defending Omar, when she fucked up. More than once.

Israel =/= Jews.

AIPAC =/= Jews.
Why is it that are you unable to acknowledge that there is more to do this than that. That's what the AIPAC are doing, yes, we're not discussing that aspect because we agree on that. Linking money to AIPAC is naturally a bad idea to them because they are in fact Jewish, that does not go away to win an argument. It's why that's a tone deaf response. There was no clarity or nuance in her tweet so she got backlash from it.

There's nothing wrong with that tweet. Although, what you are doing is antisemitic, I'm afraid. She didn't mention Jews or Jewish people. Conflating AIPAC or Israel with Jewish people generally is antisemitism. It's astounding how so many of you who claim she has uttered an antisemitic statement are the ones invoking the trope, not her.
That you can't see what's going on here is astounding, or you're trolling. It's disingenuous, regardless.

Ignore AIPAC, and their disingenuous claims - they have no credibility in this thread. This is about perception of antisemitism in American politics and global culture where showing signs of being an antisemitic is an obvious bad idea. This is nothing to do with AIPAC, as explained previously. It is possible to anciently say racist things without meaning to be racist, this is not something inherent to antisemitism. It's why white people don't say the R word, or touch Black people's hair.

Do none of you recognise antisemitic language when you see it in public? This is breathtakingly ignorant. The lack of self awareness is staggering. This is about antisemitic language can be appear antisemitic due its framing, his isn't about if she's right or this would be a very short thread because everyone agrees with her. Defaulting to that defence shows they're not looking at anything side from surface detail of a very serious topic.
 
May 18, 2018
305
b) they buy loads of our weapons and that's worth a lot of money and helps to secure the relationship onto the future (see what happens to the various countries who bought US fighter jets only to fall out with Washington and find their jets stop being useful because they can't buy spare parts anymore).
So it's about money?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.